>Tough times produce tough men, tough men produce good times, good times produce weak men, weak men produce tough times
can this be said to be true in any historical setting? cause it sounds deep but comes across like a gross generalisation
I keep seeing variations of this posted a lot on social media, but can't seem to attribute the quote to any source
are we living at times of weak men?
Other urls found in this thread:
youtube.com
nature.com
twitter.com
We're living in a time of decadence. Life is more complicated than twitter.
There is a cyclical aspect to history that everyone notices but it's difficult to come up with anything other than banal platitudes about it.
has there ever been an attempt to write a book about the supposed "cycle of history" ?
I am new to reading historical texts in general so this seems like an interesting concept
a lot of people seem to be picking up the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire these days...
agreed
>Is this simple one sentence generalisation sufficient to sum up all of human history and the current incredibly complex geopolitical situation
>Can I lump everyone in the world into the weak vs strong camp
Honestly it's sheer reductive idiocy people spout so they can appear to have some understanding of the current situation while also allowing them to mentally put themselves in the strong camp. Immediately think less of someone when I hear it said
>mentally put themselves in the strong camp.
This, really. No one who posts that crap phrase actually thinks "Oh yeah, I'm in the weak camp".
What people call masculinity are just conflict bred traits that were necessary. Men adopted them easier simply because of theit biological capacity to overpower women. We In the first world are rapidly progressing toward a conflict free era. Of course men are going to be more effeminate and I use that word because I'm lazy. I really don't mean the transgression that it implies. Conflict based traits were never mentally healthy to begin with. Essentially they turn men into pent up animals in a word that has increasingly less of a use for that type of man
OP here
I must admit i had the exact same reaction reading it and I would justify this conviction by sayings things like
>I constantly submit myself to discomfort both physical and mental, although what that is exactly is subjective, surely what counts as suffering to me in this decadent culture is noting compared to some who came before
>i try to embrace pain and seek to live a life that is very aware of death, something that people seem to avoid completely
>i believe in complete self reliance in terms of emotions, finance and all that
red pill shit essentially but if you were to ask me who is more prepared to face a war - myself or these guys that are a part of the same generation jerking it porn, living in their basements and never looking beyond the edge of their noses, well, I do stand apart
I guess the real separation between "weak" and "strong" men is if they believe in anything or not
You're an idiot, and you're comparing yourself to the lowest of the low and feeling good when you come out better just for living an entirely unremarkable normal life, that has never not been an unremarkable normal life.
would you just give up then?
spengler?
Denial is not strength, it's a symptom of weakness.
What do you mean give up?
What am I "giving up" exactly by not comparing myself to others to make myself feel better?
>these guys that are a part of the same generation jerking it porn, living in their basements and never looking beyond the edge of their noses
what percentage of the population do you think youre referencing?
besides "looking beyond the edge of their noses" which is a subjective metric
It's true. Only pussy nu-male beta "intellectuals" get offended at the suggestion.
t. weak man
>We In the first world are rapidly progressing toward a conflict free era.
lmao, I love how liberals repeat this bullshit. You do know that that's exactly what everyone thought after WW1?
>Essentially they turn men into pent up animals in a word that has increasingly less of a use for that type of man
We see the fruits of such thinking in Europe where virile Arabian savages will dominate that emasculated continent in thirty years. The future has never belonged to the peaceful and the meek. Never has and never will. It's only ever been the birthright of the bloodthirsty.
The most successful i.e. the future of this world have always been steadily progressing toward a conflict free environment. Crime ridden areas and war torn countries are not a part of this.
>birthright of the bloodthirsty
This isn't naruto
>still religiously believing in "progress"
>This isn't naruto
Who survives? A people so flabby and pampered that conflict seems like some antiquated relic to them? Or a people who believe they are on a holy mission to kill and propagate. No empire in the history of the world was built on kindness or survived through softness.
its a typical sophist statement
it's like hegelian dialectics but reduced to just thesis and anti-thesis
The only objective measurement between weak and strong men is money. Everything else is conditional.
The successful of the world are hardly ever touched when conflict does indeed arrive. The useless masses who were never going to be the future inheritors of this planet will surely die. But this bloodthirsty savage you are creating will in no way be stronger than the elites, even if they are the embodiment of this alpha male meme
>were living in a time of decadence
>world is the most peaceful is has been, ever
>world is the most educated it has been, ever
>world is the wealthiest it has been, ever
>almost every developed nation at all time lows of poverty, crime, and unemployment
>scientific advancement in all fields making major break throughs almost every day
>all of this is supported by mountains of research, studies, and statistics
>shits fucked because i read so on the internet
You're right, life is more complicated than twitter.
>lmao things are fine i have vidya games n shit
Wait until the EU falls
>i cant counter his argument with facts or even logic, so ill throw bullshit at him and hope it sticks
Okay, well you can reread what I wrote and do some research for yourself, or you can keep acting like an idiot. I don't really care either way.
You're the one acting like an idiot. Having wealth and "peace" doesn't mean that we aren't living in an age of decadence. You're believing utopianist liberal memes and don't understand that no society lasts forever.
elaborate pls no i idea what you said pls no bully
isn't it the way of men to either lead or follow meaning that you are always comparing yourself to someone? can't exist in a vacuum
pic related?
If a homeless man was to brutally ravage and kill a millionaire, who would be the strong?
Heheheh... savage! You're right in youre implications, Anonymous... The only strong ones are those who survive... The weak, are all who die... Thats right everyone becomes weak in the end... And if youre surviving you have no right to be called strong... But what really matters is when the chips are down... Can you tango in the jungle... When the FIRE is LIT... WHO will REIGN
I meant no right to be called weak -- sorry.
Come on, man. I wasn't trying to make some booming declaration that only those that can kill are strong and those that die are weak. I was just trying to gauge that user's view.
Unless you're being genuine. In which case, you have a very funny way of writing
Is this accessible enough to a history newbie?
You could have just wrote that from the beginning you idiot. If the only way to get you to respond with actual arguments is to call you an idiot then you're going to get called an idiot a lot.
Sure, men lead and follow. That is unrelated to your original argument however, which is simply a self serving assertion that you are strong and that they are weak based on your lifestyles.
I never claimed not to be. Everyone wants to be in the strong camp and everyone says that they are in the strong camp. Claiming to be strong is no sign of strength.
>progressing towards a conflict free era.
Have you been completely ignoring the last 2 years of geopolitical posturing?
The millionaire. He would most likely live on in some financial sense with still much greater influence even in death. His children would also carry on his legacy.
Regardless of what happens the strongest will survive and emerge unscathed. They will not suffer the traumas of war. They will wall themselves off in their castles and life for them will continue to progress.
It's a theme in the poetry of Yeats, albeit in obscure/mystified form.
>cycle of history
Giambattista Vico aknowledges it as a spyral growing upwards. I think it is in his book New Science.
I would say most powerful, not strongest.
>The only strong ones are those who survive... The weak, are all who die...
>When the FIRE is LIT... WHO will REIGN
Hegel's philosophy of history lectures
well then please, tell me, how long has this one lasted? because I can tell you with certainty this isn't the same society we had 1000 years ago, or 500 years ago, or 200 years ago, or even 125 years ago
no one? the homeless man would not be strong for long, he would be put in prison or be running for the rest of his life
Bump for comfy pic
>he thinks total war is at all possible in the nuclear era
Ayy le mao
what's the difference?
different guy; what do you believe in instead then?
IDK, what about the Roman empire? they conquered other peoples and lands but once they were paying taxes and not trying to kill Romans they were pretty nice to them; softness is arguably what held it together for so long
>The future has never belonged to the peaceful and the meek. Never has and never will.
Jesus would disagree with you
>Conflict based traits were never mentally healthy to begin with.
that's majorly oversimplifying
a certain amount of conflict is absolutely healthy, it drives people, makes them get out of bed in the morning, makes them do things better, do new things
so do lust and greed and envy and wrath and even sloth, laziness is the father of invention
it's really hard to find an inherently bad or unhealthy drive in the human mind
time is a lemon cupcake
It's not sustainable.
drop the ego, the source of all misery
I love you, OP
Also:
1/Read the Dao De Jing
2/Compare all available translations
3/????
4/Profit
Only weak men obsess about weakness. The biggest tell that the west is weak is all of these Trump-tarded right-wing cunts who think everything is so fucked when things are really not that bad. They're about to cause much worse.
I like this thread
Information is not knowledge.
Knowledge is not wisdom.
Wisdom is not truth.
Truth is not beauty.
Beauty is not love.
Love is not Veeky Forums.
Veeky Forums is the best.
That is true but we are talking about conflict tied to male identity. To say you are less of yourself simply because you do not excel in a conflict environment. Though men are predisposed biologically everyone does not excel to the same degrees and manners. Believing that you must be more of a man by manning up (that blanket catch all term) is a spook. If one does not break themselves from that spook damage will happen
>are we living at times of weak men?
Yes
Yes. Going to become a tranny and then kill myself in my 30s.
and look what happened to him
Very relevant experiment.
looks interesting, thanks for sharing
t-thanks? :')
how does one go about ego destruction?
is renouncing from society the true measure of strength? is there no argument for participating in the circus? do we not have a duty to our fellow man?
thanks
I agree with what you say about my statement being based on ego, but I suppose that is the default setting of humanity, so as I ask above, should we just give up and renounce society and let it crumble?
in b4
>society itself is nothing but a massive defense mechanism to protect our fragile animal egos from awareness of its own death
You're getting the cause and effect wrong, or at least half right. It's necessary for conflict bred traits to exist in men in order to compete with females and then overpower them for sex. It's the same in most species except many insect populations where the male qualities like industriousness and physical strength are used purely in relation to maintaining the hive/group, like Communist China for example.
*for not with females
There is no correlation between a self serving braggart ego and the maintaince of society and all that.
You misinterpret me. My issue is with bragging, with looking down on and showing contempt for others based on self verified virtues, not with the very concept of the ego in itself.
What annoys me about the mouse utopia experiment is the constant politicization of it. It's endlessly used by an-caps and so forth to justify their ideology, as if the only area in which struggle and meaning can be found is in the pursuit of money and financial success. The strength of man is to find meaning in other pursuits. The poor man who excels at his trade can be happy and fulfilled if he doesn't have to struggle to survive or excel financially.
why do you assume it's always going to be easy? do you even know the world you live in?
what you're saying when things get though, and someone comes to you and claims your wife you won't react because conflict.
what do you think it will happen to your genes?
Agree. The only possible peace is armed peace.
Overpowering women for the basis of reproduction and general primitive survival skills/traits are not mutually exclusive. It does serve as a good example of how these traits are becoming increasingly unnecessary though. Whether in opposition to the world or women, modern life offers many more paths to survival and reproduction outside of the prioritization of these traits.
Again, for the most successful of the world life is a continuous progress. Money and capital render all else unnecessary. What progress has showed is a less need for conflict. A lesser need for conflict diminishes the prioritization of these traits for survival. Simple darwinism
How about reading a little bit about what you're asking and only afterwards make a thread, you retard.
Wouldn't know where to turn to read about it, hence the thread, now I've got some recommendations, don't be so angry desu
The fate of empires
A relatively short essay by Sir John Glubb
thanks user
>>were living in a time of decadence
Wrong. 20% of the world is, the other 80% are struggling to live above the poverty line we assign them.
>>world is the most peaceful is has been, ever
Kek, this is the most unmeasurable metric, ever. There is still war, the world has been at war for thousands of years, there has never been peace, it's always simply depended on where you live. You live in an area which has been relatively peaceful for a while.
>>world is the most educated it has been, ever
Kek, no.
>>almost every developed nation at all time lows of poverty, crime, and unemployment
Huh?
>>scientific advancement in all fields making major break throughs almost every day
Kek, and? This doesn't push people forward in the way you think it does. It just does pic related. There are a very few scientific advancements which actually pushed us forward. And I bet you cannot name them.
>>all of this is supported by mountains of research, studies, and statistics
Kek. Nice reasoning you use there.
Research - easily falsifiable, and regularly done by these scientists - nature.com
Studies - see above
Statistics - kek, you don't actually think a number is representative of reality? causation and correlation and all that.
We literally live the exact same we did a thousand years ago, both in a social and political way. We just have more flashy toys, and a little easier life style.
The rich are still obsessed with getting richer, and don't care about the plight of others. Nothings changed. Nations still exist, you may tip your fedora.
nice how you shoot down all that shit and don't provide anything to replace it
nice how you don't provide any evidence for some of the things you're trying to shoot down
really convincing
There are more than one type of tough and weak men. In tough times there are fat cynical leaders and lean mean followers just the same as good times.
And in good times you could argue having no skill other than being strong and brave is "weak" and being smart and adaptive is "tough".
Also, a lot of times the "toughest" people weren't musclebound jocks but just starving, desperate and willing to do whatever it took to accomplish their ends. Just as a lot of the soft men at top were in good shape and had studies weaponry and horseback riding but mainly succeeded based on their savvy and self-marketing.
There is no "strong and weak" men stop slaving to these spooks. The only difference is a man who is well fed and a man who isn't. We are well fed, there is no need to be "tough" or too enact historical change. Go more than a day without a meal, and those "weak" men will be rioting on the streets and will kill to eat
This faggot thinks writing "kek" is an argument, please leave
Also the ottomans. They lasted for so long because of local autonomy
>bad history on Veeky Forums
Thanks /pol/.
>has there ever been an attempt to write a book about the supposed "cycle of history" ?
I read this book by a history professor who spent a lot of time in Iraq(back then) written in the 1950's, his premise was exactly the same as OP's. He observed that at first, generals are the heroes of an empire and slowly artists become the heroes. He thought that there was a logical explanation through gender and race that caused an empire to fall apart.
Gender because men feel worthless when they can't use violence, and Race because he thought that enclaves were the determining factor in their decisions. People would stick with who's familiar.
I disagree with him because there's simply too many factors that differs this era from back then, I think it's probably more like a stack of cards that everyone is trying to blow to the center furiously and failing.
I have no doubt people will disagree but the extent of my argument would end up being financial, it's simply too hard for everyone to go against international corporations because they need to operate in 200 countries to make one goddamn iphone and no one cares enough to fuck that up.
It's my pet theory that rampant corporations saved the world from another war because they make it too expensive to go to war and too risky to endanger trade in the first place.
I'm sure things will fuck up in an unexpected way, because it's history and that's how it works.
However, according to that guys book the U.S should have died awhile ago. Technology, especially communications, changes the game entirely. It's far too easy to talk things out now and realize that threatening war is actually more productive than actually going to war.
all of that only applies to a percentage of people, and in vary degrees.
most of the world is steeped in suffering. all of those things have a cost to them, and ultimately, a responsibility to them.
nothing mystical about it either, this is the disintigraton of a civilizational paradigm that was welded into place by man's stupendous technological advancement over time. the internet age wouldn't be possible if the world wasn't as involved with itself as it has been through technology - for whatever end. exploitation, war, altruism, etc.
>world is wealthiest it has been, ever
what is this fuckery.
can confirm this is a legit interesting read dealing with the OPs question
get off your ivory tower and elaborate your explanations or gtfo :D:D
source?
>We literally live the exact same we did a thousand years ago, both in a social and political way
Yes I'm a knight for my lord and king, better go off and fight those Vikings that are raiding Yorkshire.
Him ða Scyld gewat to gescæphwile
...
>broad generalisations require anything but a broad refutation
Elaborate on
>the world is the most educated it's ever been
>scientific advancement in all fields making major breakthrough almost every day
These are the most blanket statements out there, of course it's going to be readily refuted using other blanket statements.
>we don't have a leader/follower political system
>nations don't attack other nations for resources.
Are you even trying?
the big difference is widespread democracy